Sleep Deprivation Impairs Cooperative Behavior Selectively: Evidence from Prisoner’s and Chicken Dilemmas

Figures & data

Figure 1 (A) Payoff matrix for general structure. (B) Payoff matrix for the prisoner’s dilemma. (C) Payoff matrix for the chicken dilemma.

Abbreviations: C, cooperation; D, detection; P, punishment; R, reward; S, sucker; T, temptation.

Figure 2 Experimental protocol of normal sleep and sleep deprivation conditions.

Table 1 Objective Measurements and Subjective Ratings During Normal Sleep and Sleep Deprivation

	Normal Sleep	Sleep Deprivation	p
PVT
1/mean RT	3.24 ± 0.34	2.12 ± 0.74	<0.001
Number of lapses	3.46 ± 2.78	17.00 ± 15.18	<0.001
Cooperation Rate (%)
PD	28.69 ± 29.54	30.49 ± 31.51	0.992
CD	80.19 ± 26.75	58.01 ± 37.76	0.007
Subjective Rating
Sleepiness	4.78 ± 1.21	6.42 ± 1.64	0.061
PANAS (P)	28.92 ± 7.64	25.58 ± 9.44	0.020
PANAS (N)	14.25 ± 6.04	18.17 ± 6.79	0.004
ROQ	44.70 ± 3.21	47.00 ± 6.59	0.057

Abbreviations: CD, chicken dilemma; PANAS, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PD, prisoner’s dilemma; PVT, Psychomotor Vigilance Test; ROQ, Risk Orientation Questionnaire; RT, response time.

Table 2 Correlations Between Cooperation Changes and Indicators’ Changes

			Indicators (Normal Sleep vs Sleep Deprivation)
			Number of Lapses	1/Mean RT	Sleepiness	PANAS (P)	PANAS (N)	ROQ Ratings
Cooperation (normal sleep vs sleep deprivation)	PD	r	−0.008	−0.067	0.291	0.028	−0.014	0.326
		p	0.972	0.755	0.167	0.895	0.587	0.119
	CD	r	0.057	0.260	0.373	0.075	−0.062	0.002
		p	0.793	0.221	0.073	0.732	0.770	0.992

Abbreviations: CD, chicken dilemma; PANAS, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PD, prisoner’s dilemma; ROQ, Risk Orientation Questionnaire; RT, response time.

Figure 3 Cooperation rates for CD and PD under normal sleep and sleep deprivation condition.

Note: *p=0.007.

Abbreviations: CD, chicken dilemma; PD, prisoner’s dilemma.